Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sakshi Enterprises

DRT24 Mar 2026TA/1200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the origin application filed by Union Bank of India to recover dues from M/s Sakshi Enterprises. The defendant appeared ex-parte. The court found the bank's evidence uncontroverted and proved the case for recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directing the defendant to pay Rs. 10,06,329.40 with interest at 10.95% p.a. and costs within 30 days; recovery from hypothecated and personal assets in case of default.

Union Bank of India versus Sakshi Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

Before susHrl KUMAR RAsToGr, prcsiding officer Debts Recovety Tribunal_Il, Delhi

¶3

TA No.t200 OF ZO2g uNroN BANK gl rlpr4 (E-coRpoRArroN BANK) vs M/S SAKSHI ENTERPRISES

¶4

Reserued on : O9.O3. 2026

¶5

Pronounced on : 24.03.2026

Union Bank of India

-Applicant bank

Vs.

M/s Sakshi Enterprises - Defendant

¶10

Present: Shri. Vishnu Jaysaval, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Sole defendant is expafte since Ol.OL.zOtg.

¶11

FINAT ORDER

¶12

This originar apprication has been fired by the applicant ban( onz4.Lt.zot7 through Ms. Meenakshi, Manager of the applicant bank, under section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the sole defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,06 ,329.40 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.85o/o from date of filing of this o.A. till the realization in full.

¶13

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the sole defendant, the applicant bank sanctioned a cash credit Facility of Rs.9.00 Lacs for working capital finance for sanitary items business, vide sanction letter dated 15.03.2013. The sole defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 16.03.2013. The aforesaid credit facirity was secured by hypothecation -t''1(eli

¶14

¶15

TA NO. tZ}O of 2023

¶16

of movabre (existing and future) a, equipments, raw materiar, finished goods, etc. and hypothecation of stock and receivabres/book debts which now berong to and may hereafter during the subsistence of borrowers riabirity berong to borrower, which are already procured/ to be procured out of bank roans, and which are shaU may be brought into or stored and or be 'in/upon the borrowers & their rented premises/unit and any other place. In consideration of the applicant having agreed to grant and or granted the said loan and having agreed to make disbursement to the defendant, proprietor sh. Trirok Singh Negi in his personal and individuat capacity executed unconditional and irrevocabte deed(s) of guarantees inter alia with respect to the cash credit facirity.

¶17

It is further submitted that the sole defendant enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial disciptine and faired to repay the due amounts. The appricant bank requested the sore defendant to regutarize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the sore defendant, hence the account was crassified as NpA on 3t-03.20L7. The appricant bank served a demand notice dated 25.09.20L7 to the sore defendant but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present o.A.fi.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶18

4 on notice by this Tribunat, sote defendant faired to put appearance at art, despite pubrication. Accordingly, the sote defendant was proceeded against expafte on 07.01 .20L9.

¶19

¶20

TA NO. 1200 of Z0Z3 3

¶21

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Ms. Amita Dhiran, senior Manager of the applicant bank as paper No.21 to paper No.101 arong with the oA, which have gone unchattenged and unrebutted. Hence, the case of the appricant bank stands fully established against the sole defendant with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount.

¶22

After perusing the records, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant bank has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The evidence and documents filed by the appticant bank not rebutted by the sole defendant by not ptacing any evidence and there is no question of disbelieving the evidence and documents fited by the applicant bank based upon the written/pri nted docu ments.

¶23

In the light of the above discussions, the present r.A. deserues to be allowed.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the sole defendant to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs. Lo,o6,3zg.4o along with cos! expenses and interest @ 10.g5o/o from the date of filing of this o.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶26

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shalt be recovered from the sale of the hypothecated assets. In case of shoft fall, the same shail be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovabte assets of the ---sole defendant. I

¶27

---5a I

¶28

TANO. 1200of2023 4

¶29

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery officer, Debts Recovery Tribunar-fl, Delhi.

¶30

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy ofthe order and send the same to both the parties.

¶31

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on ZS.OS.ZO26.pending IAs, ifany, stand disposed of.

¶32

File be consigned to records.

¶33

Date:24.03.2026

¶34

¶35

(su^sl1r^L_59tuARRASToGT) PRESIDING OFFTCER DRT-II, Delhi

¶36

This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶37

Date : 24.03.2026

¶38

s4 (susH r Ll(l,r(AR Pjisibcr) PRESIDING OFEICER DRT-II, Delhi

Union Bank of India v. Sakshi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sakshi Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases